We've been over all the stats, all the different ways other countries do things, all kinds of different methods and procedures for obtaining guns, yada, yada, yada. The only way to change these things is to drastically reduce the number and types of guns available to the public and do away with the rest. That ain't gonna happen. We have decided, as a society, that having all these guns in worth the "trade off" of people who die from gun violence. End of story.

We once decided, as a society, that slavery was a necessary evil. Good people stepped up and changed the culture. Should we just decide that everything that is wrong with America is OK? Why? Because we are too lazy, reprehensible, and amoral to right the wrong? Or are you saying that the people killed in US gun deaths have no value?

Not at all. I'm saying as a culture we have decided that owning as many guns as we want has more value than the lives of these people. I don't agree, and have stated so over and over in these threads for years. I am in the minority.

You think the guns in Chicago come from Chicago? You don't think there are people who buy guns in places with less lax gun laws and then bring them into Chicago?

Chicago is used as a talking point first and foremost because that's where Obama is from. Clever ha-ha confirmation bias, all that.

So there's no knashnig of teeth of the source, this is from a Daily Caller piece written by a firearms rights activist:

Since 2007 U.S. gun manufacturers have more than doubled their output. For the years I have detailed (1986 – 2012) over 164 million new firearms have been manufactured or imported and sold in the United States. In 2014 it is just beginning to slow down, but is still above 2012 levels, which was a record high by a wide margin. By the end of 2014, I fully expect to see this number approach 200 million. The Congressional Research Service put the number of civilian firearms ownership in the United States at 310 million back in 2009: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns. Although we won’t get the official domestic production figures for 2013 from the BATFE until January 2015, you can see from the manufacturing and import figures above that another 45 – 47 million guns have been added since then (2010 through 2013). Conservatively, we probably have well over 350 million guns in this country right now, and that is a low estimate for the reasons stated above. I believe—at a minimum—another 30 million new guns will be manufactured and sold before Barack Obama leaves office at the end of 2016. I predict the numbers of firearms owned in the United States will easily top 400 million well before this decade is out. And to my mind, that’s a good thing.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/gun-ownership-by-the-numbers/#ixzz3nhwNSgBt

As the gentleman refers to in the article, the ratio of gun ownership in the U.S. is 1:1. That's one gun for every person.

The talk of "getting them out of people's hands" is folly. The cat is out of the bag and has had several generations of kittens. It is logistically impossible to "get rid" of guns. Before anyone exclaims "So we do nothing?" they should probably try and wrap their heads around the size of the something.

So there's no knashnig of teeth of the source, this is from a Daily Caller piece written by a firearms rights activist:

Since 2007 U.S. gun manufacturers have more than doubled their output. For the years I have detailed (1986 – 2012) over 164 million new firearms have been manufactured or imported and sold in the United States. In 2014 it is just beginning to slow down, but is still above 2012 levels, which was a record high by a wide margin. By the end of 2014, I fully expect to see this number approach 200 million. The Congressional Research Service put the number of civilian firearms ownership in the United States at 310 million back in 2009: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns. Although we won’t get the official domestic production figures for 2013 from the BATFE until January 2015, you can see from the manufacturing and import figures above that another 45 – 47 million guns have been added since then (2010 through 2013). Conservatively, we probably have well over 350 million guns in this country right now, and that is a low estimate for the reasons stated above. I believe—at a minimum—another 30 million new guns will be manufactured and sold before Barack Obama leaves office at the end of 2016. I predict the numbers of firearms owned in the United States will easily top 400 million well before this decade is out. And to my mind, that’s a good thing.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/gun-ownership-by-the-numbers/#ixzz3nhwNSgBt

As the gentleman refers to in the article, the ratio of gun ownership in the U.S. is 1:1. That's one gun for every person.

The talk of "getting them out of people's hands" is folly. The cat is out of the bag and has had several generations of kittens. It is logistically impossible to "get rid" of guns. Before anyone exclaims "So we do nothing?" they should probably try and wrap their heads around the size of the something.

The size of the something shouldn't matter. If the 2nd amendment is important enough to be considered sacrosanct, then we should be prepared to pull out all the stops and no expense should be spared to deal with the consequences. Instead, Congress goes the other way and in the immediate aftermath of the Charleston shooting this past July they voted to continue the ban on funding any CDC research into gun violence and how to combat it. Just imagine how many billions we would be prepared to spend if 30,000+ Americans were being killed every year by terrorists.

[Edited on 10/5/2015 by gondicar]

Just got this email from my brother in China, interesting angle, which never occurred to me:

Sorry to hear about that shooting in OR. News trickles my way a little bit slowly. Last night I may have had an epiphany. Maybe someone with more legal savvy could look at it in a more critical light. It is this. Apparently, the Only reason it is so hard to get anywhere on gun control is that it is burned into the Constitution in the original Bill of Rights. Well, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anyone has the right to SELL weapons. Just as some states now allow limited use of marijuana, but still strictly control or outlaw sales, why not reverse engineer the same logic regarding guns. Let them exercise their rights to keep guns, but outlaw sales, starting with particularly nasty automatic assault rifles and ammo.

The size of the something shouldn't matter. If the 2nd amendment is important enough to be considered sacrosanct, then we should be prepared to pull out all the stops and no expense should be spared to deal with the consequences. Instead, Congress goes the other way and in the immediate aftermath of the Charleston shooting this past July they voted to continue the ban on funding any CDC research into gun violence and how to combat it. Just imagine how many billions we would be prepared to spend if 30,000+ Americans were being killed every year by terrorists.

I've seen those numbers, I've read those articles. I have no idea how to deal with over 400 million guns.

And just like Abortion, if you want one or need one bad enough, the above sentiments will have zero effect on your decision.

I figured that response was coming. As soon as a loved one is gunned down, I guess we'll find out. Though the odds of that happening in my lifetime is close to zero.

Isn't that an argument against gun ownership? Why do folks need guns to be safe if the odds of loved ones getting gunned down are so low?

What I can't stand is Obama and allies pretending that if only these things happen these things will magically end. It's nonsense. Can you name one single mass shooting that would have been avoided with even more stringent gun laws? Did these mentally ill shooters walk into a shop and legally buy these guns such that if they were psychologically tested they would not have been allowed to purchase? Maybe so but prove it. Demonstrate something. It reminds me of back in the 80's when Congress pretended it was anti-crime by taking things that were crimes under state law in all 50 states and making them federal crimes. It didn't do ONE thing to stop any of those crimes but it let the COngressman pretend they were actually doing something.

Yeah. That's exactly what Obama said. "Gun deaths will magically stop if we make more gun laws."

What a load of pig $hit.

Does it really matter what the gun laws are in NYC if the criminals are buying the guns at gun shows in Virginia and selling them in New York? There have been many proposals that would make it harder for criminals to get guns. I also support a national, even a military effort, to find and arrest every individual who has an unregistered, illegal weapon. If we spent the same type of resources on getting these illegal guns off the streets as we spend on terrorism I believe we would see gun deaths minimized.

I'm glad you support such serious efforts to seize illegal weapons because the left in American cities does not agree.

I think the families of the slain people have a right to know what is in that manifesto. And Shame on people exploiting this incident to demand stricter gun laws. The blame in this case lies with the Mother, the nurse for taking him to the range, he had tantrums and should not have been allowed to have free access to them. Since they were divorced, how is it that the kid had access to military grade weapons, were they stolen from the army?
[Edited on 10/4/2015 by gina]

Lots of half-facts, but you're on the right track. The mother and father separated right after the shooter was born, but didn't officially get divorced until 2006. The mother, a NURSE who knew her son had mental impairments, collected an arsenal and took her son to the shooting range in CA. She specifically moved to OR to buy as many guns as she could because she thought CA might pass stricter gun laws. She sought out shooting ranges where she and her son could shoot unsupervised. The father hadn't seen the son in 2 years. The mother purchased all the weapons legally (and the son may have purchased one or two legally.)

Aside from the manifesto, I want to know 1) where the mother is and 2) is she under criminal investigation? I can't find ANY source that has mentioned her after the day of the shooting. Sounds like at the very least she handed an arsenal to a mentally impaired boy/man, practiced shooting w/him, and let the chips fall.

What I can't stand is Obama and allies pretending that if only these things happen these things will magically end. It's nonsense. Can you name one single mass shooting that would have been avoided with even more stringent gun laws? Did these mentally ill shooters walk into a shop and legally buy these guns such that if they were psychologically tested they would not have been allowed to purchase? Maybe so but prove it. Demonstrate something. It reminds me of back in the 80's when Congress pretended it was anti-crime by taking things that were crimes under state law in all 50 states and making them federal crimes. It didn't do ONE thing to stop any of those crimes but it let the COngressman pretend they were actually doing something.

What I can't stand is all these politicians since the 1920's who pretend that car accidents are going to magically end. It's nonsense. Can you name one single car accident that would've been avoided with tougher driving laws?
____________________________
Yes. I can name tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of deaths that have been avoided by laws requiring safety mechanisms on cars as well as tougher driving laws including lower speed limits DWI laws and others. I fail to see how restricting gun ownership more than it currently is will do anything to prevent these particular atrocitiies that we are talking about here which of course in terms of numbers when comparing to vehicular deaths is like comparing my house to the Freedom Tower. As we all know the vast majorit of gun deaths do not take place in spree attacks like this at all. I would say the vast majorty come from gang or drug related crime in the cities and the vast majority of the perpetrators and the victims are minorities. Almost all the guns used in these crimes are already illegal.
______________________________
_______________________________

I agree about NYC. It was foolish of them. It doesn't change anything about what I said.
___________________________
I'm glad you agree. It changes everytrhing about what you said because as always those in power want to make up phony solutions that won't do anything while ignoring in the name of some sort of ideology the solutions that actually work.

_____________________________

Why are you outraged at proposed gun laws in the wake of our children being massacred but have no issue with our driving laws?
____________________________

I am not outraged at proposed gun laws. We already have gun laws. I am outraged by phony politicians using incidents to forward a political agenda without any regard to actually solving the problem. Where on earth are you getting driving laws from? There is no comparison between the two. I favor licenses and restrictions for guns. I favor the same for vehicles. They exist for both. I wouldn't automatically call for new driving restrictions if a driving tragedy took place.
_____________________________

Why are you focusing on Obama's reaction instead of what to do about our children being murdered? I'm disgusted as well by Obama's lack of action. But he's 100% right about what he says. But since all he does is talk about it, he's part of the problem too. Enough is enough. Somebody effing do something.
________________________________

Because Obama never ever ever misses an opportunity to use a tragedy to political advantage.
_________________________________
You continue to harp on the fact that it won't prevent them all. But I've said a million times that it could very likely stop some, which makes it worth it, unless you are alloak and don't care since the odds of it happening to HIM are low.
_________________________________

I don't think it will stop any. The only thing that will is total gun confiscation. Like in Britain and Australia which Obama cites as examples of good actions taken. If that's what you favor that's fine. Just admit it. Eliminating cars would prevent all auto accidents also. Nothing that Congress will pass will prevent these tragedies.
___________________________________

The ones who should be advocating the most for change are the pro-gun crowd. There a bunch of irresponsible parents and children who are taking advantage of the object and its laws. If you value the 2nd amendment and the object, shouldn't you want to ensure that the respect for the hobby is always maintained and preserved? Why do they seem to accept these mass shooters who tarnish the hobby and the object?

___________________________________
I agree and consider the NRA an extreme organization. That doesn't mean that anything Obama and the demagogues in Congress will pass will do a thing to stop events like this.

The school was a gun free zone.

No, it wasn't. As a matter of fact, there were people on campus at the time with concealed carry permitted guns on their person.

But, yeah, we get it Doug. Obama, leftists, marxists, blah blah blah.

It would have been good if armed guards were present. Then the shooter could have been shot the second he drew. Too bad none of those people with the permits were present when the shooter arrived.

Those who elect to do nothing in the name of preservation of the 2nd amendment, are a major part of the problem.

I don't get it. What do you mean do nothing? Oregon has extremely strict gun control laws. The school was a gun free zone. What exactly should be done? Do you want all guns confiscated and destroyed? What do you want done? Do you want the police to go onto the streets and confiscate illegal guns? New York was doing that very effectively and gun crime dropped exponentially. But the DiBalsio and his radical allies demanded it stop. Now gun crime is rising.

Yes guns should be confiscated whenever possible and the vetting of people or the process and procedures to attain a gun legally should be made much tougher. Screening should be much more stringent before anyone gets a gun. Nobody should be able to just walk into a store or go to a gun show and buy a gun and walk right out the door with it. They should be heavily screened and tested and questioned and have checkable references. Owning a gun should be a right but only for those who can prove beyond a doubt that they are mentally stabile and don't have any evil beliefs or tendencies. The process to legally obtain firearms should be much more strict and difficult than it currently is. Just far, far too easy for anyone who wants a gun to get one.

I agree with everything you say above. Everything. ANd yet NONE of these things would prevent any of these spree shootings.

The school was a gun free zone.

No, it wasn't. As a matter of fact, there were people on campus at the time with concealed carry permitted guns on their person.

But, yeah, we get it Doug. Obama, leftists, marxists, blah blah blah.

It would have been good if armed guards were present. Then the shooter could have been shot the second he drew. Too bad none of those people with the permits were present when the shooter arrived.

There's a former military man who was one of those students who had a concealed carry weapon on him. He gave an insightful interview where he said even if he was closer to the shooter he wouldn't probably do anything on the premise that when the police show up, they'd think he was the bad guy.

Armed guards? At every school and college? Alrighty then.

The school was a gun free zone.

No, it wasn't. As a matter of fact, there were people on campus at the time with concealed carry permitted guns on their person.

But, yeah, we get it Doug. Obama, leftists, marxists, blah blah blah.

It would have been good if armed guards were present. Then the shooter could have been shot the second he drew. Too bad none of those people with the permits were present when the shooter arrived.

There's a former military man who was one of those students who had a concealed carry weapon on him. He gave an insightful interview where he said even if he was closer to the shooter he wouldn't probably do anything on the premise that when the police show up, they'd think he was the bad guy.

Armed guards? At every school and college? Alrighty then.

I saw an Air Force vet interviewed, armed and 200 feet away when the shooting
started. He wanted to render aid but was told by a school official to stand down.

Whenever people are shot in one of these incidents, it seems that none of the victims
ever has a gun.

The school was a gun free zone.

No, it wasn't. As a matter of fact, there were people on campus at the time with concealed carry permitted guns on their person.

But, yeah, we get it Doug. Obama, leftists, marxists, blah blah blah.

It would have been good if armed guards were present. Then the shooter could have been shot the second he drew. Too bad none of those people with the permits were present when the shooter arrived.

There's a former military man who was one of those students who had a concealed carry weapon on him. He gave an insightful interview where he said even if he was closer to the shooter he wouldn't probably do anything on the premise that when the police show up, they'd think he was the bad guy.

Armed guards? At every school and college? Alrighty then.

I saw an Air Force vet interviewed, armed and 200 feet away when the shooting
started. He wanted to render aid but was told by a school official to stand down.

Whenever people are shot in one of these incidents, it seems that none of the victims
ever has a gun.

Stoopid victims, clearly it is their fault for not carrying.

Of course, there is a lot of scientific studies and data that has showing owning a gun increases your chances of getting shot, but hey we all know by now that anything based on science is not to be trusted so go ahead, arm yourself and fire away!

The school was a gun free zone.

No, it wasn't. As a matter of fact, there were people on campus at the time with concealed carry permitted guns on their person.

But, yeah, we get it Doug. Obama, leftists, marxists, blah blah blah.

It would have been good if armed guards were present. Then the shooter could have been shot the second he drew. Too bad none of those people with the permits were present when the shooter arrived.

There's a former military man who was one of those students who had a concealed carry weapon on him. He gave an insightful interview where he said even if he was closer to the shooter he wouldn't probably do anything on the premise that when the police show up, they'd think he was the bad guy.

Armed guards? At every school and college? Alrighty then.

I saw an Air Force vet interviewed, armed and 200 feet away when the shooting
started. He wanted to render aid but was told by a school official to stand down.

Whenever people are shot in one of these incidents, it seems that none of the victims
ever has a gun.

So, should every member of our society carry a gun?

The school was a gun free zone.

No, it wasn't. As a matter of fact, there were people on campus at the time with concealed carry permitted guns on their person.

But, yeah, we get it Doug. Obama, leftists, marxists, blah blah blah.

It would have been good if armed guards were present. Then the shooter could have been shot the second he drew. Too bad none of those people with the permits were present when the shooter arrived.

There's a former military man who was one of those students who had a concealed carry weapon on him. He gave an insightful interview where he said even if he was closer to the shooter he wouldn't probably do anything on the premise that when the police show up, they'd think he was the bad guy.

Armed guards? At every school and college? Alrighty then.

This is what I have been saying all along as those on the right always claim that more guns would help. They always say things would have been different if legal guns owners were allowed to carry concealed guns around in public.

What happens when three or four legal gun owners pull out weapons and start reacting??? Do they shoot the killer who usually wear body armor? Do they mistake each other for the shooter and start shooting at each other??? Do more innocent people get killed in that crossfire than would have without the extra guns??? Or do law enforcement mistake one of the legal carriers for the murderer as the guy who was on that campus with a legal gun stated above???

Personally I see more death and carnage if you multiply the amount of guns involved legal or not. To me it just adds a layer of confusion to the whole thing.

I saw an Air Force vet interviewed, armed and 200 feet away when the shooting
started. He wanted to render aid but was told by a school official to stand down.

Whenever people are shot in one of these incidents, it seems that none of the victims
ever has a gun.

Stoopid victims, clearly it is their fault for not carrying.

Of course, there is a lot of scientific studies and data that has showing owning a gun increases your chances of getting shot, but hey we all know by now that anything based on science is not to be trusted so go ahead, arm yourself and fire away!

I'm not afraid of being shot. Getting shot is not an active worry as I live day to day.
If I was worried to the point of imploring the government to please pass more gun
control laws believing that would make us safer, it would make more sense to carry
a gun. I'm not in that camp.

We should have public gun racks on every corner, like the way they have bicycles for everyone in Amsterdam. And shotguns and revolvers in those Break In Emergency glass boxes, where they used to have the fire axe. come to think of it, haven't seen those around in a while...maybe Lizzie Borden got hold of one? Mass axing?

Mandatory gun ownership for all! Anyone not carrying in public is a traitor and not to be trusted!

Good sci-fi, a whole society based on guns. Like a futuristic Wild West. SWAT teams in every kindergarten. Could rent out guns at the snack bar in movie theater lobbies, not allow folks into concerts unarmed especially Nugent shows. Be some serious drama when folks rushed the stage for sure, you could shoot out the cellphones for target practice.

No one is going to go take anyone's guns away.

No one is going to have someone take their guns from them.

The populace has quietly accepted death by gun massacre as an acceptable risk in our society.

That's it.

I sadly concur

Currently, a five month old baby is killed in a Cleveland drive-by shooting
An 11 year in Tennessee gets ahold of a gun, and shoots dead an 8 year old because she wouldn't let him see her puppy

All the laws, all the talk, all the moral pontificating in the world won't put a stop to gun violence -- never has, never will

It's the massacres that get us talking yet in the last couple days An artist doing mural under freeway and a ice cream vendor where killed in Oakland. The artist got in some argument with someone and he returned later and shot him...The Ice cream vendor was just driving down the street and someone came up and shot him....why here

This happens daily around the US without anything be done. Someone mentioned 200 - 250 shooting in a weekend in Chicago....That's just mind boggling

Why here....why only here in the US does this happen....why will anyone not comment on why only here. We aren't war torn country....other nations allow firearms....so why here and why so frequently....

Why is gun violence the answer???

A different point of view, from Ignatius Piazza, Founder of Front Sight, an organization that advocates responsible gun ownership and provides training in the proper use of firearms.

"Guns are not responsible for the 10 deaths at Umpqua College yesterday any more than cars are responsible for the 395 deaths over Labor Day weekend. That's right, 395 men, women and children were killed over Labor Day in car accidents. Why didn't Obama hold a press conference the day after Labor Day, expressing, his grief and anger over the senseless killing of nearly 400 people on our highways during Labor Day Weekend?

Why didn't Obama ask the American people to do something by pressuring their elected representatives to change our laws? Why didn't Obama take a swipe at the car manufacturers and car dealers for building and selling cars to the American people knowing full well that EVERY YEAR, over 32,000 people are killed in car accidents? Yes, 32,000 EVERY YEAR.

Why didn't Obama plead with the American people to make a change and pressure Congress to pass laws that forbid the sale and consumption of alcohol, recreational drugs, and pharmaceutical drugs, all of which dramatically contribute to 87 highway deaths PER DAY? Why didn't Obama sign an Executive Order forever banning Labor Day. After all it would save nearly 400 people EVERY YEAR. WHY? Because banning the manufacture and sale of automobiles, or alcohol, or recreational and pharmaceutical drugs, or getting rid of all the national holidays, does not fit in his Socialist agenda to disarm the American public so he doesn't give a shit about the 32,000 innocent lives that are lost EVERY YEAR on our highways.

No, he wants to disarm the American people as does his political party. So he never fails to immediately call for a press conference in the Jim Brady Room and put on the show. That is exactly what is...just a show. Those of us who can see through all his disingenuous theatrics know he does not give a damn about those ten lives lost or he would be holding press conferences to pressure the American people to stop the carnage on our highways which in just one weekend, Labor Day Weekend, just last month, killed 40 times more innocent people than yesterday's shooting.

Make no mistake, Obama and his party WANT YOUR GUNS and will stoop to any means possible to get them, even it if means being the first to hold a press conference to capitalize on the deaths of ten innocent people by blaming guns and gun owners for their deaths, while turning a blind eye to the 87 people that will die TODAY and EVERY DAY on our highways.

GUNS ARE NOT TO BLAME FOR THE 10 DEATHS YESTERDAY ANY MORE THAN CARS ARE TO BLAME FOR THE 32,000 PEOPLE WHO WILL DIE THIS YEAR ON OUR HIGHWAYS.

So who or what is to blame and what kind of Executive Order should Obama sign if he REALLY wants to end these mass shootings? An Executive Order that targets the CAUSE of these mass shootings and it is NOT guns..After Columbine, while most journalists and lawmakers focused on whether or not my answer to protecting children by arming teachers was the right solution, it seems everyone missed my understanding of the root cause that drove these kids to commit such atrocities!

The root cause was and continues to be the psych drugs that are being pushed on our children!

In some cases children as young as kindergarten age!

After Columbine, nobody wanted to believe the founder and director of the nation's largest firearms training institute when he pointed his finger at psych drugs as the cause of the problem. During numerous radio, TV and newspaper interviews I would bring it up and it would fall on deaf ears with no reaction at all.

So I spent $300,000 to create a Hollywood produced, award winning DVD entitled Front Sight Story, Chapter One: Your Legacy. In "Your Legacy," I interviewed people of age who actually experienced an America when guns were so freely available to children and youth, that you could order them through the mail with no ID required, no waiting period, and literally carry them to school to place in the back of the classroom with no problems at all. During this time, when guns were the most accessible in our country's entire history, there were no school shootings, drive by shootings, or murderous teenage rampages.

What changed? Here is what changed: Powerful psych drugs were developed and became the profitable, prescription answer to a wide variety of extremely questionable if not outright fabricated mental disorder diagnosis of youth. Little Johnny doesn't want to go to school? Take this pill... Little Johnny isn't learning? Take this pill... Little Johnny feels anxious? Take this pill... Little Johnny is sad? Take this pill... Little Johnny is restless? Take this pill... Little Johnny is rebellious? Take this pill...

And once Little Johnny started taking the brightly colored pills to handle the normal challenges of youth that every prior generation had overcome naturally through the process of social maturity, Little Johnny began the downward spiral of adverse prescription drug side effects leading to multiple prescription, psycho drug cocktails... stronger drugs... physical and psychological dependency... and the now infamous and reoccurring homicidal and suicidal reactions caused by these very powerful, mind bending drugs.

There is a truism I keep posted on the wall above my computer. It reads, "People of integrity expect to be believed. When they are not, they let time prove them right."Well, unfortunately and tragically in this case, time has proven me right, time and time again! Numerous school shootings over the last several years ALL linked to children and teens under the influence of powerful, prescribed psych drugs!

Psych Drugs, NOT GUNS, Are the Common Deadly Thread in School Shootings!And now, instead of Dr. Ignatius Piazza, the Founder and Director of Front Sight saying, "Its Psych Drugs, Not Guns, Doing the Killing" . Now that people on both sides of the gun control debate agree that psych drugs are creating suicidal and homicidal maniacs out of our youth, the time has come to expose the truth to all of America.

You can help save today's youth from further psych drug abuse and protect America's next generation from the horrors of psych drug prescriptions. It only takes 10% of the population to unite, stand up and say, "No more!" for social movements to succeed. You CAN do something about this!

Fox National News reporter Douglas Kennedy exposed the link between psychiatric drugs and school shootings:"

REMARKS: The government has further decided to label children as needing different medications. The government has ignored the fact of WHO is doing these killings and what their medication status is. IN this case a developmentally disabled person decided he was going to kill a bunch of people and then take his own life. His Mother did not prevent him from having access to her guns. Her lack of sound judgement contributed to the deaths of those students.

The Army tries to train a developmentally disabled person and gives him weapons and firearms. In a war situation, military have to respond to ever changing situations and may be called upon to do make decisions outside of following orders in order to save lives, someone who is developmentally disabled cannot be expected to be able to make the split second decisions that sometimes happen in war.

There was nothing wrong with the gun laws in this instance, it was the lack of judgement on the part of the Mother to giver her developmentally disabled son weapons and let him decide how and when to use them. Yet once again, the govt. uses this incident to further it's disarm American citizens. They won't talk about the kids put on psych meds, they won't talk about the parent's responsibility to keep their own lawfully obtained guns secure. WHY NOT? It doesn't fit their bigger agenda.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-unveils-gun-control-plan/ar-AAf7X2S?li=AAa0dzB&ocid

[Edited on 10/6/2015 by gina]

The car example is a great illustration of the issue in my opinion. Cars don't kill people, but how many people would die from auto accidents if there were no cars?

The car example is a great illustration of the issue in my opinion. Cars don't kill people, but how many people would die from auto accidents if there were no cars?

How many people would die in house fires if there were no houses?

The car example is a great illustration of the issue in my opinion. Cars don't kill people, but how many people would die from auto accidents if there were no cars?

How many people would die in house fires if there were no houses?

Exactly! How many people live in your gun? How many kids do you take to school in your gun? Guns are made for killing. And if one is not afraid of being shot, why would one need a gun?

The car example is a great illustration of the issue in my opinion. Cars don't kill people, but how many people would die from auto accidents if there were no cars?

How many people would die in house fires if there were no houses?

Exactly! How many people live in your gun? How many kids do you take to school in your gun? Guns are made for killing. And if one is not afraid of being shot, why would one need a gun?

Nobody would die from obesity if there was no food.

The car example is a great illustration of the issue in my opinion. Cars don't kill people, but how many people would die from auto accidents if there were no cars?

How many people would die in house fires if there were no houses?

Exactly! How many people live in your gun? How many kids do you take to school in your gun? Guns are made for killing. And if one is not afraid of being shot, why would one need a gun?

Nobody would die from obesity if there was no food.

Exactly! How many lives do you sustain with your gun? Oh, wait..........

Exactly! How many people live in your gun? How many kids do you take to school in your gun? Guns are made for killing. And if one is not afraid of being shot, why would one need a gun?

Having known many gun owners they all speak with a brave voice that is drenched in fear of everything....the unknown.....the boogie man waiting for them.....the secret intruder....It's the only reason they own a gun.....fear

Exactly! How many lives do you sustain with your gun? Oh, wait..........

Please stop talking common sense it confuses those who use wild exaggerations to try to prove a point

Yes you can use just about any object to hurt someone and yes there are many creations that are man made that cause death....but mans best creation for death is the gun....see it's the only real purpose it has....some do use it for sport to shoot targets or clay pigeons and some own them for their craftsmanship......but the brass tacks bottom line is they are a very productive killing tool designed exactly for that purpose....all the other purposes are ancillary.

And all those crazy angry mentally ill people know that

Exactly! How many people live in your gun? How many kids do you take to school in your gun? Guns are made for killing. And if one is not afraid of being shot, why would one need a gun?

Having known many gun owners they all speak with a brave voice that is drenched in fear of everything....the unknown.....the boogie man waiting for them.....the secret intruder....It's the only reason they own a gun.....fear

Exactly! How many lives do you sustain with your gun? Oh, wait..........

Please stop talking common sense it confuses those who use wild exaggerations to try to prove a point

Like nobody would die in car accidents if there were no cars?